Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Appellant Muhammad Ikram was a Postal Clerk in D. G. Khan GPO. He was proceeded against under the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973 and was awarded the penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 30.07.2011. His departmental appeal dated 15.08.2011 was rejected on 15.10.2011. Hence this appeal.
2. The charges against the appellant were that as Postmaster Khayaban-e-Sarwar, in the months of June and July, 2003, he had misappropriated Rs, 114,190/-, out of the amount collected against electricity bills and had also misappropriated Rs,500/- received against PLI receipts. Earlier on the same charges the appellant had been dismissed from service vide order dated 27/31.05.2004. This penalty was challenged by him in the Lahore Bench of the Federal Service Tribunal by filing Appeal No, 385(L)CS/2006. It was decided on 10.03.2011 by a Bench comprising Syed Mehar Hussain Shah and Mrs. Neelam S. Ali. Members. The appeal was accepted and the aforementioned order of dismissal from service was set aside. The department was directed to initiate denovo proceedings against the appellant. It was in the denovo proceedings that the impugned order dated 30.07.2011 was passed.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the original proceedings had been completed under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, therefore, the present proceedings in which the impugned order was passed should have also been carried out under the same Ordinance and not under the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973. Thus his contention is that all the proceedings were coram-non-judice.
4. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is submitted that since the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 had been repealed, therefore, the proceedings were .taken against the appellant under the E&D Rules. Their contention is that a regular inquiry was held against him by Mr, Muhammad Aslam Khan, ASPOs and since the charges were proved he was awarded the penalty in question.
5. The first question to be resolved is as to under what law the present proceedings could take place. The Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 had been repealed by Act No, III of 2010, Removal from Service (Special Powers) (Repeal) Act, 2010 with effect from 05.03.2010. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the original proceedings had been taken against the appellant under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, therefore, under Section 2(3) the present proceedings should have been completed under the repealed ordinance And not under the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973.
We would have accepted this argument of the learned counsel had the proceedings, earlier started, had continued and resulted into the impugned order. But we find from , the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal that the department was directed to initiate and hold de-novo proceedings against the appellant. The FST had not directed continuation of earlier proceedings.
The word "initiate", according to Chamber 21st Century Dictionary means "to make something begin". The FST had directed totally fresh proceedings against the appellant and these proceedings could definitely be not carried out and completed under the Repealed Ordinance. The proceedings had to be initialed and completed under the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973 still they had come back into force again. In the circumstances, the contention of the appellant that the proceedings were coram-non-judice is repelled.
6. The appellant was accused of misappropriation. The amount in question is stated to have been deposited by him before the proceedings were initiated against him. Such deposit did not exonerate him of the charge of misappropriation. On the other hand, it established that charge. If he had not misappropriated any amount he would not have deposited the same.
7. Even otherwise in the inquiry held by Mr. Muhammad Aslam Khan the charges were fully proved.
He was heard by Mr. Shafi Muhammad, Authorized Officer. In that capacity Mr. Shafi Muhammad had recommended major penalty for the appellant. Thus all the legal and codal formalities had been fully observed. An Authorized Officer was appointed, Thereafter a regular inquiry was held against the appellant. He was served with final show-cause notice alongwith copy of the inquiry report dated 21.07.2011. He cannot plead before us that he was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself.
8. Finding no merit in the appeal we dismiss it with no order as to costs.
9. Parties shall be informed accordingly.